Homosexuality is an irrational behaviour in that it cannot possibly serve the biological function of reproduction. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 by the American Psychological Association was not without controversy; and remains contentious today (http://www.narth.com/docs/consequences.html ). By and large, our society is built upon commonly accepted customs, traditions or practices, however unfair or silly they may seem to some people, yet these have evolved and become the accepted ways of how we function and work together as a species. For thousands of years the man-woman relationship has dominated, and has proved very stable and successful if the expansion of human population and technological advances are any measure to go by.

So why, in the name of fairness, which no one has yet defined, does a group of social misfits keep pushing to get their weird idea of relationships accepted by a society that is really not interested? Homosexual relationships are inherently more complicated than heterosexual ones, especially where children are involved, and must therefore have a higher probability of failure with associated psychological problems like depression. The mere fact that these people are demanding legal recognition is evidence that there are problems. When relationships are fine, people don’t need a court. This is yet another example of pandering to minority groups and individualism, which happens far too often in Western society and is a significant contributor to ongoing social decline, as seen in the prevalence of drug addiction, vandalism, theft, divorce and unsolicited violence.

To those who see my partner and I, who this year celebrate thirty wonderful years together, as misfits, perverts, paedophiles,sodomists and all the nasty discriptions you can come up with. Maybe you should take a look at yourselves, as you appear to not be aware of the people around you, you appear to be living an insulated life. Not wanting to accept that there are other people on this earth other than yourself. Who live life, even under daily challenges and just carry on, because they have each other, which you find abhorent. You don't pay our mortgage, you don't pay our grocerie bills, you don't pay anything for our being , but we do pay full government taxes, which contributes to "families"and the community. What we do not enjoy, to those who consider us "misfits", we do not have legal safeguards to our relationship even after thirty years of just living our lives together.
You can stick your marriage, we don't want it, all we want is respect and our moral legal rights.
We are Australians, but second class Australians and these two "Misfits" are going to fight. You may call us what ever you want to boost your ego, we are use to it. But you are no way going to deny the right of all those young gay men and women, to be whom they are! To have the same choices in life that you enjoy, at our expense.

Hi Kipp,

I am merely trying to show that there are as many reasons not to give homosexual relations the same legal status as normal ones, as there are reasons to grant them; but there seem to be people on your side of the debate who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this. As much as you feel disrespected, so you must accept that other people feel that you do not respect the long established customs and traditions that they hold dear. I am married and I think it's great, though it will be a long time before I equal your impressive achievement. I apologise for any offense and I wish you success in getting whatever recognition you feel you deserve.

@Robg, I doubt you offended Kipp as he is decent enough to rise above you. You offend the Australian culture which is proud to be tollerant and caring. Your wit is lower than a common yobbo by about 120 degrees. Kipp is celebrating a fantastic achievement in commitment and love that has lasted 30 years. I am downright inspired to hear his story, against the odds. This is a brave couple, strong and detirmined. I don't understand it, but my understanding is irrelevant. I have no insecurities to fuss about.

My congratulations to you Kipp on your anniversary! God bless you! Such courage and commitment deserves praise and celebration and I think a few of you could learn a thing or two about good manners and decency in speaking to a good decent gentleman like Kipp.

Whether you call it civil union, de facto, whatever, when a couple of adult humans demonstrate the real thing, now that is bloody inspiring. Even if you don't understand or disagree with the concept, you have to give them credit, this is really a worthy achievement. They are not shoving their identities down your necks at all, some of you are shoving stupid hypotheticals down everyone else's necks, and some of these whacky prejudices are really offencive.

@the man who wants to marry his dog in the tombs of ancient Egypt, the other who keeps talking about the jungles of Africa, and the woman who obsesses about children, oh c'mon Aussies, you are trying to turn this into a circus! In such a stupid performance, one tip in acting. Never involve children or animals. You will always make a mockery of yourself. The issues of animals and children have no relevance to this subject. Again, point of order, this is about the status of a commitment between 2 consenting adults of the same gender. The issue is not about adoption, or the couples having children. To that other writer who needs help, leave the poor bloody dog alone, the pet is just trying to show effection. Does the RSPCA read this?

Maximus of course marriage is not only about oneself – it involves oneself and another person of the opposite sex. The Marriage Act 1961 doesn't say “your marriage is about children” it says marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. So, a man and a woman can get married, fertile or not. A man and a man (or a woman and a woman) can’t get legally get married in Australia – this is okay with me as long as a man and a man (or a woman and a woman or even a man and a woman who don’t believe in marriage) can sign up for a civil union where they have all the legal rights/responsibilities available for those who are married OR all individuals get legal rights based on their standing as individuals rather than based on what relationships they are in and in that case gay people don’t need a civil union because they already have all the rights/responsibilities they need.. I thought you would be a supporter of individual rights/responsibilities regardless of gender, sexuality etc.

Horus – while animals can communicate with each other and presumably have the consent thing worked out animals cannot express consent to have sex/get married to humans. Your statement “some animal owners would disagree” is itself evidence. Were animals capable of consent and expression you would say “some animals would disagree” and then be able to show evidence of animals asking for sex/marriage with humans. So, as Saintfletcher, puts it so well – never involve children or animals (that is – don’t have sex or marriage with children or animals – obviously children are sometimes the result of sex!).

Robg, what a lovely apology you make to Kipp, that’s great. Just a note about your arguments, “When relationships are fine, people don’t need a court.”, many marriages end up in the Family Court of Australia yet we don’t deny heterosexuals marriage because 1-in-3-marriages doesn’t work out.

Saintfletcher, to be pedantic it’s “affection” not “effection”.

Pedant, now you have got me confused - "obviously children are sometimes the result of sex!". So where do they come from the rest of the time? ;)

All jokes aside thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned contributions to this thread.

I find it rather sad that some are so determined to try and force others to live to their own standards regardless of the harm done when they are successful. It is also sad that some have so much trouble with a concept like consenting human adults (strange that it seems necessary necessary to add the word human in there), whilst there will be exceptions in most cases it is fairly easy to determine if someone is a consenting human adult by the laws of this land. Last time I checked sheep, dogs and children were not adult humans. Consent can be a more difficult issue but nothing in our current system overcomes the issues faced by those who are pressured into giving a consent they might not otherwise give.

Cheers
R0bert